JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Better late than never, as you'd have thought that she would have come around sooner after being "mugged at gunpoint" or the time she was raped by 2 guys at knifepoint in her own apartment.

The articles did state she had a gun and ammo in the house. Apparently it was not secured when she was not there however.

The 58-year-old wrote that she keeps guns and ammunition in her home and was concerned one of the intruders had gotten a hold of them.

I'm just glad that she is taking this route rather than demand guns be banned.
 
I know someone who's son dates a very popular hollywood actress.

She is almost a prisoner in her own home. Can't leave the house without an entourage of armed security. Some are ex-special forces. Her property is patrolled by no less than 6-12 bodyguards at all times.
Before that She was in her home when a crazed guy broke in and tried to get to her luckily she had a panic room and hide inside until the police came

It's always the hollywood and rich crying about gun control.
To bad all of us normal people can't afford our own army and pentagon style panic rooms.

I still think all the people crying about gun control need to live unarmed and without security in the worst neighborhood of their state. Then preach about how you don't need a weapon.
 
This does kinda beg the question though... Assuming she had a gun in this instance and did in fact use it on the woman who broke in and attacked her, how solid would her legal footing be in using deadly force against her?

According to NC law, which does have "Castle Doctrine"
Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

In this case she got some 'scratches and bruises' according to the article. Would she have shot her AFTER receiving these, what are the chances of a jury deciding force was necessary but not deadly force?

This sort of thing is what I tried to study about for months before buying my first gun. I am still extremely nervous about the possibility I might be put away for defending myself in my own home. Washington doesn't have an official "castle doctrine" but our laws are more of a defacto version of it.
 
I think with the knowledge of having firearms and ammo in the house and the fear the people had those would be enough. She had reasonable fear for her life.

However it would have been sad after the fact knowing she had a child with her
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top